Abstract
This chapter is one that is particularly rich in philosophical arguments and has as its main focus the critical evaluation of the arguments against transhumanism that have been raised by a number of prominent philosophers and other individuals. Based on the critiques of transhumanism offered by critics such as Leon Kass , Francis Fukuyama , and Michael Sandel , the chapter critically assesses five commonly raised arguments why human enhancement by artificial means should not be undertaken: fairness, human dignity issues, “slippery slope” arguments, the “repugnance” argument, and safety issues. The weakness of “slippery slope” arguments and “repugnance” arguments are given special attention. In the end it is concluded that safety issues are the most realistic concerns that the pursuit of transhumanism raises.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788–1860) (As is the case with some earlier quotations used at the beginning of previous chapters, this quotation is offered as “food for thought” and not as a philosophical stance defended in the chapter.).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The term “bioconservative” is used here and elsewhere (Sect. 7.7) without any intended pejorative sense, reflecting a well-developed philosophical position with which, as discussed in further sections, I am in general disagreement. The term “bioluddite” is sometimes used when contempt is intended.
- 2.
It has not escaped my attention that university students already often use pharmacologic assistance in an attempt to earn higher marks.
- 3.
Plato envisioned his ideal society as consisting of three classes: the producers, the auxiliaries, and the guardians. The producers included farmers, craftsmen, merchants, artists, and so forth, and they did not participate in governing. The auxiliaries were the warrior class, responsible for defense and policing; they too did not govern. Only the guardians, picked from the ranks of the auxiliaries, were responsible for governing while living in austere conditions, as they would not own private property, would live frugal, communal lives, and would have minimal privacy. Plato envisioned that the guardians would even possess wives and children in common!
- 4.
I say this provided that proportionate contributions to society follow, as with the philanthropy example provided by Bill Gates. While the principle of liberal freedoms would allow individuals to accumulate wealth by legal means through hard work, enterprise, innovation and imagination, this does not suggest that these same individuals do not have a moral responsibility to shift some of their wealth to less fortunate individuals (notwithstanding the followers of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of ethical egoism). Such a redistribution of wealth is typically achieved via taxation, although some thinkers argue that wealth redistribution via philanthropy is an even more acceptable method. Of course, in this setting the issue is not so much whether such redistribution should take place, but rather the extent to which wealth should be distributed from the rich to the less fortunate.
- 5.
If asked, Kass might argue that he is not using the “slippery slope” argument in the usual way, but rather is invoking a sequence of logical steps constituting a logical inference. Kass might say that if X logically entails Y and if Y is morally unacceptable, then X should also be morally unacceptable.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
ETC Group (2007) Goodbye, Dolly … Hello, Synthia! J. Craig Venter Institute Seeks Monopoly Patents on the World’s First-Ever Human -Made Life Form. Retrieved January 7, 2013, from http://www.etcgroup.org/content/patenting-pandora%E2%80%99s-bug-goodbye-dollyhello-synthia.
- 9.
Arguably, however, this would not be the first time that God has had “competition”, since the same issue arose decades earlier in the 1970s with the debate on recombinant-DNA methods.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
A possible example is the publication in the journal, Science, of information concerning the viral genome of the 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus, which killed as many as 50 million people worldwide, because of fears that this information could be used for evil purposes (Tumpey et al. 2005).The rationale for this work was altruistic: by reconstructing the virus, researchers learned which genes were responsible for making the virus so dangerous, which in turn helps in the development of new drugs and vaccines. For an interesting discussion on this matter, see http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800911.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Doyle, D.J. (2018). Defending Attacks Against Transhumanism. In: What Does it Mean to be Human? Life, Death, Personhood and the Transhumanist Movement. Anticipation Science, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94950-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94950-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94949-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94950-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)